Court decisions & case law

Judgment[1992] KEHC 1688 September 1992

Judgment[1990] KECA 2519 February 1990

MUNGA CONCRETE WORKS LTD v INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD

Court of Appeal at NairobiJudge specifically holds HCCC,JUDGE APPEAL,KariukiCivil Case No 3131 of 1988

Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL 18 OF 89 Munga Concrete Works Ltd.......................appellant v Industrial Development Bank Ltd..............respondent Judgment. The background facts giving rise to this appeal can be stated briefly.

appeal is allowedAllowed6 min read

Judgment[1989] KECA 4816 November 1989

Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S" v Caltex Oil

Court of Appeal at MombasaAct,Bosire,JUDGE APPEAL,Inamdar,Alexander,Satchu,Kariuki,Saliarelis,Tsakiris,PLSCivil Appeal 50 of 1989

Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal

That evidence so far as it was adduced by the respondent fell foul of the requirements of rule 5 of Order 75: it failed to establish that the appellant was “the relevant “person”. The upshot of that is that the High Court did not have admiralty jurisdiction and the respondent was not entitled to invoke that jurisdiction.

Appeal allowedAllowed77 min read

Judgment[1984] KECA 428 June 1984

Choge & 3 others v Republic

Court of Appeal at NairobiJudge Assessors,Judge Assessors Mr,Judge did direct Assessors,judge find Musamali,judge rely Dr,judge could rely upon Dr,JUDGE APPEAL,Etyang,Kapila,Kibuthu,Witte,Musyoka Annan,Kariuki,Kibithu,Gathua Dr,Patel Dr Gathua,Njenga,Okoko,Muliro,Elgon Studio,Patel Dr,Musyoka,Kapila compared Baraza,Patel found Peter,Okoko Inspector Munyole,Etyang invited Court,Tuwei,Kapila made regarding Okumu,Otieno,Etyang stated Musamali,Kantilal Patel Dr,Gathua examined Musamali,Patel,MusyokaAnnanCase number Criminal Appeal 69 of 1984

Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal

Parliament until 1979, when he lost his seat; who would pay them Kshs 36,000 for carrying out that order which was described as ‘the work’. If the prosecution case was accepted there could be no question but that Charles and the second appellant were to be armed with guns when they went to arrest Tenai.

77 min read